Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush.

Don't believe it?

Let's go to the chart.

Here's Federal Expenditures from 2000-2011 (quarterly figures, annualized), from the St. Louis Fed:

Recommended For You

The Board Room

Editors' Picks

The numbers you state are right, the stupidity is in the conclusions you draw from them. Obama didn't start the mandatory spending in Medicare and Medicaid. That spending accounts for most of the automatic growth in the national debt. George W Bush on the other hand, had a much smaller problem to deal with, he never bothered to rein in healthcare costs, passed two huge tax cuts at a time of war then, and he made it all worse by passing an unfunded Medicare Part D benefit with no new revenue to offset it. Let's just call a spade a spade. The Stimulus was the cheapest of the big spending items I've just talked about and even that was one-third tax cuts.

Excuse me, I was a Republican when Reagan was in office. The quadrupling of the national debt at that time came from two sources. First, Arthur Laffer sold Reagan on "trickle down economics (ie cut taxes). He told the Gipper that it would ultimately increase revenues because of enhanced business activity. He said it was OK to borrow until then. Reagan fell for it and federal revenue plunged. The second reason was a tremendous increase in military expenditures. The army that Poppy Bush used in Desert Storm was created by that build up. I won't argue the merits of that build up or the use that army was put to, but the Democrats had little to do with it.

This will not make me any friends but I don't care. Have no illusions, the Democrats may be stupid, even really stupid, but the Republicans are so dishonest they can't walk in a straight line. That's why I'm an Independent now.

Henry, The debt grows because of mandatory spending, and in times of recession, Mandatory spending grows because unemployment insurance kicks in hard, healthcare costs (therefore Medicare) continue to rise at double the rate of the economic growth rate, while tax receipts fall.

One important thing Obama did in 2009 is that he stopped pretending the wars weren't part of the budget. For 8 years in office, Bush relied on an OMB accounting process that kept the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan from counting in the budget. People don't like being told the truth, so they immediately said the jump in the deficit was Obama's fault.

Seriously, both Democrats and Republicans are like little bickering school girls. Does it matter where the federal spending came from? Prior increases in federal spending were green lit at that time for specific purposes. Comparing the need to fund a race to the moon, attack Iraq, or adding fiscal stimulus is retarded. The government just has to create a plan now that going forward we can have a sustainable debt to income level. If that means cutting entitlements or increasing taxes, then that's what they have to do.

"Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush."

When you feel obligated to insert an administration apologist talking point into your statement of fact, you've lost objectivity. Nobody is calling Bush a paragon of fiscal virtue. He was always a compassionate conservative big government Republican. Two wrongs don't, however, make a right, and just because Bush has no credibility on spending does not mean the same is true of the hardline right of the GOP.

Your analysis omits an understanding of the following:

1) 8 years of increasing population, an expanding economy, increased federal tax revenue, and most importantly, inflation, necessitate an upward sloping line no matter how fiscally prudent the governance. I do agree that it should have been a shallower line.

2) 2 years of a breathlessly cratering economy with mostly stagnant population growth (immigration is way down), and mild core inflation (haha Bernanke core is a double edged sword) should not necessitate that the trend of the line turns from linear growth to hyperbolic between 2009-11. That is the basis of the criticism of Obama's spending. To say nothing of the fact that revenues have crashed so most of it is deficit spending.

Keynesian stimulus did not work in the 30s and it has not worked under Obama.

Henry, there's absolutely no point in bringing up an argument based on facts and data if people won't agree what the facts are. There's a right wing universe, a left wing universe, and then reality. Look at what's happening today. Republicans have been offered $4 trillion in cuts, with no increases in tax rates if they agree to close tax loopholes to raise about $1 trillion. They won't take the deal because they don't care about reducing deficits and debt, they want to reduce spending and dismantle programs 80% of the country wants to protect. They know that the chaos of a default will hurt the economy and increase their chances of capturing the White House next year, so why do they need to do a deal?